Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 11 : 12 : <13> : 14 : 15 . . . . . 23
Debate Over Intelligent Design
Of God and the case for unintelligent design
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/04/EDGROE2DK21.DTL&hw=rabbits&sn=001&sc=1000
As the theory of intelligent design again hits the news with President Bush's encouragement this week that the theory be taught in schools alongside evolution, I have one question: What about unintelligent design?
Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so, cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is, it's at the far end of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients can happen. A sensible system -- as we see in ruminant animals like cattle and deer -- ferments before the small intestine, maximizing nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through, sending half-digested food back through the small intestine for re-digestion.
Horses are similarly badly put together: They ferment their food in a large, blind-ended cecum after the small intestine. Unlike rabbits, they don't recycle their feces -- they're just inefficient. Moreover, those big sections of hind gut are a frequent location for gut blockages and twists that, absent prompt veterinary intervention, lead to slow and excruciating death for the poor horse. The psalmist writes: "God takes no delight in horses' power." Clearly, if God works in creation according to the simplistic schemes of the intelligent design folks, God not only doesn't delight in horses, but seems positively to have it in for them.
Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it possible for animals to digest their natural food without playing host to huge populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals have been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?
But that's not all: Consider mammalian testicles. In order to function optimally, they need to be slightly cooler than the rest of the body and so are carried outside the body wall in the scrotum. Why would one carry one's whole genetic potential in such a vulnerable position? Clearly it's not a gonad problem in general -- ovaries work just fine at body temperature and are snuggled safely within the pelvic girdle for protection. But for testicles, nope -- the scrotum is jerry-rigged to allow for a warm-blooded animal to keep his testicles cool. Surely an intelligent designer could have figured out a way for testicles to work at body temperature, as ovaries do.
Here's another: Do you know anyone beyond the age of 20 or so who has not had a backache? Let's face it: The human body is that of a quadruped tipped up on end to walk on only two legs. The delicate and beautiful cantilever curve of the human spine compensates (but not enough) for the odd stresses that result from our unusual posture. Perhaps the God of intelligent design has a special place in his plan for chiropractors? And what about the knee? Between the secure ball-and-socket of the hip and the omnidirectional versatility of the ankle is a simple hinge joint, held together only by ligaments (including the anterior cruciate ligament) whose names are known to athletes and sports fans because they're so easily and frequently injured. Again, unintelligent design.
The real problem with intelligent design is that it fails to account for the obvious anatomical and physiological making-do that is evident of so much of the natural world. Evolutionarily minded folks see this as the result of genetic limitations and adaptations accumulated in specialization for certain environments, while the intelligent design folks are left with a designer who clearly cannot have been paying close attention.
While there are extremely precise and fine-tuned mechanisms in nature, there is also lots of evidence of organisms just cobbled together. For instance, take marsupials, who give birth to what in other animals are analogous to fetuses, then have to carry them around in what amounts to an exterior uterus until the offspring are ready to face the world.
As a theist who sees natural evolution not as a theory but as well- established observation, I take comfort in the catch-as-catch-can of the natural world. I have every confidence that an all-loving creator walks in and with the natural world as it struggles to fruition, cheering on our evolutionary triumphs (let's hear it for the opposable thumb!) and standing in solidarity with the evolutionary misfits and misfires, like rabbit guts and horses generally.
Isn't this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives as well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often misguided attempts to live well and do right, and standing in compassion and solidarity with us when we fail, and loving us into trying again? And isn't this a more compelling vision of God, and truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation to erring humankind, than that of a designer who can't quite seem to get things right?
Lisa Fullam, a former veterinarian, is an assistant professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley.
If you find the politics too aggravating, the original evolution thread that Stinker started is here.
EDIT: Wait! Don't click it, Rabban just ticketed it! That thread is now locked.
NOTE: - Its not that I mind the subject, but I think it warrants a new beginning instead of pulling up a past discussion. There are new players and new ideas involved. Now that it has been bumped, consider it a primer and someone can start a new thread on ID if they're interested. -Rabban
RESPONSE TO RABBAN'S ABOVE INTERJECTION: I have no problem with this ^ Rabban. And the discussion can stay here, if you like. Always ready for a good thinking session. Did not want to bury one discussion with another and vice versa. Poor 56K eats worms...
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 8:47:48 AM
I can't say about Monica and Bill, 44. Based on Bill's past and Monica's lack of discretion, it is easier to make a reliable inferential conclusion about them than you can with Rove.
News flash #1: Illegal "outing" applies only to covert agents who have been out of the country during the last five years, according to the Intelligence IP Act. Plame is in doubt on this one. As matter of fact, her at-home status was pretty clear...um, transparent .
News flash #2: For Rove's action to be illegal, the Act also says that it must be proven that there was an "intent" to out and that there was exact "knowledge" of the agent's status when the leak happened.
News flash #3: To "prove" this, we still only have a few lines from the email that Time turned over from Miller's notes. Not much evidence.
News flash #4: Because Democrats and some of the media are making a jump to judgment before all evidence is in and because evidence that is also readily available is being ignored, doesn't this look just like a political game by the Democrats and some of media to snag Rove and the White House?
Bet most of the purple public think so. If we have only blue and red to choose from, as Flea's friend Mr Chaney supposes, then the undecideds must be purple, true?
For the purple people, one large pumpkin that stands out in that whole patch of political gamesmanship is Mr. Wilson. There are his many politically slanted pronouncements that he got reprimands for by the bipartisan Senate Committee on Intelligence and from the media.
But if nuances don't count and only rigid technicalities do, the case still has to be proven that Plame was covert and that Rove and Libby had knowledge of her status and the intent to out her.
...there has even been some speculation that her ID may have been let out by Aldrich Ames in 1994.
Funny thing for me, is that I don't particularly care about Rove. If after the evidence finally does all come out, it is proved that he had intent and knowledge, I would gladly do what George's dad, George Senior, did. Put him on the bus home.
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 8:26:52 AM
Um, why? ^
Here's at least two reasons not:
The Senate Committee asked Wilson how he could have come to such grandiose conclusions without any information:
On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."
ZAHN: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.
WILSON: Well, I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.
But if the interview you speak of has compelling evidence that counters this, then tell us all and we can pop popcorn and watch the movies.
Otherwise, Wilson's politicking is still out there.
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 8:48:25 AM
And while I'm on the topic of mixed thinking, Chaney's second letter and the letter to the editor by Lisa Fullam, former vetinerary and now assistant professor of moral theology, are typical of the current mantra on politics and evolution.
Ah, heck...it's my day off. I'm going to go ride my bike.
Finish this later.
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 4:22:38 PM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_rn_grieving_sheehan_ignored_by_bush_050808a.wmv
I think JJ expects us to stand beneath the landslide of ridiculous justifications while he ignores what actually
did occur and the, shall we say, unjustified
abuse of power in the outing and undermining of a dissenting voice.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/60-Minutes-Andy-Rooney.wmv
Compliments to the right on the non-replies to the evolution/ID links. If you don't think that's political, explain then what you think it is.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 9:42:17 AM
In case some of you are wondering how I can steadfastly support some ideas that run contrary to your's, perhaps this photo taken at a recent family reunion will shed some light on the subject. XD
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 10:10:59 AM
Keep reaching JJ. For your next act, can you please describe how Rove's guilt depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...
Does the irony at least make you hesitate before clicking 'SUBMIT'?
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 11:17:48 AM
@Rabban
That certainly explains a lot....course, we knew it wasn't logic or critical thinking all along.
:p
Rab: real pic of joke? Not sure what it means either way.
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 11:34:59 AM
^ Its a real photo. I have a distant uncle who resembles the Bush boys and he gets a lot of comments about it (which I believe he's sick of). Funny thing is, he's taller than I am (and I'm 6 ft).
@ 44 -
Last edited: Monday, August 08, 2005 at 12:07:10 PM
The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks
And I had thought JJ, Chief and Rabban's posts were fairly innocuous...
^ if you only knew
HEY! Has anyone heard from Judith Miller lately??
Oh, thanks, Tally and 44.
You might want to scan this really good timeline from which I am getting a lot of material.
There are a lot of very, very smart bloggers watching this in detail and tearing this thing into tiny, tiny pieces. Mr. Maquire's JustOneMinute blog has links to many other blogs, some of those links anti-Bush. If you're a news junkie, you might enjoy them.
Tally and Flea, if you post links, how about "title for hotlink" getting a little word or two of summary just for some intro? Dead links might resurrect a little if they had just a word or two about what they might have been...but hey.
Actually, on the Plame leak, I like John Tierney's Op/Ed column of July 16 from the The New York Times that he calls "Where's the Newt?"
Keep in mind that the Times is fairly liberal. The Times redeems itself in my opinion by providing solid reporting.
If you don't have time to read Tierney's column below, I'll give you the high points: Everything Tierney says I say in my above sizzling riposte to 44's post (lol).
Except Tierney calls this whole Plame leak thing Nadagate !
She...she...she turned me into a newt. Get me a shrubbery!
Where's the Newt?
By JOHN TIERNEY
We are in the midst of a remarkable Washington scandal, and we still don't have a name for it. Leakgate, Rovegate, Wilsongate - none of the suggestions have stuck because none capture what's so special about the current frenzy to lock up reporters and public officials.
The closest parallel is the moment in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" when members of a mob eager to burn a witch are asked by the wise Sir Bedevere how they know she's a witch.
"Well, she turned me into a newt," the villager played by John Cleese says.
"A newt?" Sir Bedevere asks, looking puzzled.
"I got better," he explains.
"Burn her anyway!" another villager shouts.
That's what has happened since this scandal began so promisingly two summers ago. At first it looked like an outrageous crime harming innocent victims: a brave whistle-blower was smeared by a vicious White House politico who committed a felony by exposing the whistle-blower's wife as an undercover officer, endangering her and her contacts in the field.
But if you consider the facts today, you may feel like Sir Bedevere. Where's the newt? What did the witch actually do? Consider that original list of outrages:
The White House felon So far Karl Rove appears guilty of telling reporters something he had heard, that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, worked for the C.I.A. But because of several exceptions in the 1982 law forbidding disclosure of a covert operative's identity, virtually no one thinks anymore that he violated it. The law doesn't seem to apply to Ms. Wilson because she apparently hadn't been posted abroad during the five previous years.
The endangered spies Ms. Wilson was compared to James Bond in the early days of the scandal, but it turns out she had been working for years at C.I.A. Headquarters, not exactly a deep-cover position. Since being outed, she's hardly been acting like a spy who's worried that her former contacts are in danger.
At the time her name was printed, her face was still not that familiar even to most Washington veterans, but that soon changed. When her husband received a "truth-telling" award at a Nation magazine luncheon, he wept as he told of his sorrow at his wife's loss of anonymity. Then he introduced her to the crowd.
And then, for any enemy agents who missed seeing her face at the luncheon but had an Internet connection, she posed with her husband for a photograph in Vanity Fair.
The smeared whistle-blower Mr. Wilson accused the White House of willfully ignoring his report showing that Iraq had not been seeking nuclear material from Niger. But a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that his investigation had yielded little valuable information, hadn't reached the White House and hadn't disproved the Iraq-Niger link - in fact, in some ways it supported the link.
Mr. Wilson presented himself as a courageous truth-teller who was being attacked by lying partisans, but he himself became a Democratic partisan (working with the John Kerry presidential campaign) who had a problem with facts. He denied that his wife had anything to do with his assignment in Niger, but Senate investigators found a memo in which she recommended him.
Karl Rove's version of events now looks less like a smear and more like the truth: Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.
So what exactly is this scandal about? Why are the villagers still screaming to burn the witch? Well, there's always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.
For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.
It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:
What do you call a scandal that's not scandalous?
Nadagate.
Last edited: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 5:23:25 AM
Chief! Back from the hinterlands?
We were just getting ready to toss Plame leak story into the round file, too. Sorry you didn't miss it.
Wasn't Mr. Tierney's column the WORD?
*JJ, getting up and walking away giggling...*
Maybe this deserves it's own thread, since it's only tangentially political and seems to be beyond party lines, but oh well.
SeaCode: IT Outsourcing to international water just off the coast of California.
http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10959
^ Why? We're still "Thanking Democrats."
By the way - ^ sounds like the Navy.
@ JJ
<---------still in the sticks - you and Rabby are doin' great.
One hopes it's clearer in his head than it is in his mouth.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_bush_crawford_press_conf_050809a.wmv
And on the evolutionary front...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005080818290002018849&dt=20050808182900&w=RTR&coview=
Last edited: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 1:27:51 AM
Actually, Chief, not trying to "do great"; just rambling on for fun...
But speaking of really rambling on, Flea, you may have a major news break that no one in this country is aware of yet if all that is in your detective work on my so-called juxtapositioning is true.
Meanwhile, for fun, I am going to try to pull your post into more discernible components since it is so (intentionally)...um...um...broad-reaching.
A newt! She turned me into a newt! I am saved by shrubbery!
Last edited: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 6:12:01 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/l_014_01.html
Have a look, evolution going on.
God takes care of the little people too.
That's a land mine for Dubya. She's gonna blast him no matter what he says or does. But, I think the avoidance advice he's getting right now is bad. He should go out, take his lumps, make his case for the value of her son's sacrifice, agree to disagree and have some well-prepared press comments for the post-event. Every day he ignores her, he looks worse and worse. I know the pundits will say that you can't set precedent for anybody whose got a gripe...but this is now getting too much attention to avoid and he's looking too uncaring. She and the 'liberal media' have got him by the short ones....(and I'm lovin' it).
^Funny, I never heard of this story. As far as Terry Schaivo goes I don't think it to be a crime for the Prez to stick up for Right to Life issues. IT IS a free country, isn't it? He would have looked two faced if he didn't fight for her life. (Brain dead girl?.... REALLY NICE). Plus, he can't be everywhere at once. He has paid numerous visits to injured soldiers and to the families of the war dead. I guess you all forgot he flew into IRAQ secretly not to long ago to have dinner with the soldiers!?! And he was criminalized for that. Sorry boys, but you're stuck with him for another few years.... :P
I've heard of the story (thanks to Drudge). A year ago she really raved about Bush's care and concern for her, her family and her son. Now's she's quite upset about the whole thing and wants a "rematch". I wonder what's changed in a year for her? I think her own mind's gotten the better of her, thinking in retrospect things should have gone differently or perhaps she's just grown bitter over her son's death.
I'm really not sure what another visit from the president would accomplish. I think the first one served its honest purpose. Anything further at this point is just a trap/minefield/no-win situation. Its a sad situation, losing a loved one, but I think we need to blame the right people for his death (and by that I mean terrorists).
Flea asks:
Why would the CIA send Wilson to Niger if they didn't have something they wanted investigated?
The reasons for Wilson's trip are old news, actually. Rehash, rehash.
1. In 1999, reports came from Italian Intelligence first, with no documents.
In detail here
.
2. Everyone in the administration and some in the CIA are concerned about the various reports. There are a number of inquiries, one of which is Wilson's trip to Niger that his wife suggested. <-------That is undisputed now.
About Wilson's trip the Senate Intelligence Committee says, quoting from their report:
The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available.
3. October 2002, Italian journalist Elisabetta Burba turns over documents from Rocco Martino, a security analyst, to the US Embassy. You can find sources on him too at the above link...if you wish.
You might note that in February 2002, Wilson goes to Niger, well before the documents that Burba turns over are received. These are the documents that cause the firestorm of criticism against Bush and the ones that Wilson has targeted.
However, the Senate Committee probes and asks Wilson:
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter
Am I boring you yet? Well, let me spice it up.
May 4 or 5, 2003: Wilson meets with NYT columnist Nick Kristoff. Wilson spins out his story that all the documents are forged.
May 6, 2003: Kristoff writes a column saying the documents are forged based on Wilson's inaccurate information.
June 25, 2003: Wilson goes on NPR and plays the same story.
July 6, 2003: Wilson writes his now-infamous NYT's Op-Ed column that starts the whole mess. Notice that his date is just before what? (Psssst: Presidential elections)
July 14, 2003: Novak writes his column that "outs" Plame.
July 17, 2003: Matt Cooper co-writes an article in Time magazine called "War on Wilson?" in which he says The White House is trying to smear Wilson.
My question -- and the one apparent to all who follow this -- is who was trying to smear whom?
If you read the Zahn interview more closely and the "Literary Flair" article, you might discover that Wilson has been telling whoopers and has gotten caught at it.
HE HAS EVEN CONFESSED TO IT. That is why he said "literary flair." The writer did not create those words for his piece. He quotes Wilson saying it.
Now I realize the Weekly Standard's "Literary Flair" is a little too "acidic." (That a good word?) However, it is clear (without any hyperbole) that Wilson has been up to more monkey business than Rove could dream of.
In fact, if Rove is the cunning stinker that everyone says he is, he may be in awe of Wilson. More especially though, Rove may a little flustered that Wilson has not gotten the spotlight for his monkey business as has Rove.
It is apparent that Wilson has been doing a Democratic hatchet job on the other side and has not gotten condemned for it in the media.
Or maybe it doesn't make a cute, little Andy Dick video, ya think?
Last edited: Thursday, August 11, 2005 at 8:41:05 AM
Hey,
Just thought y'all would like to know that I am now corresponding with Judith Miller via www.writeaprisoner.com.
She claims she isn't protecting anyone....she is doing it because Time Warner wouldn't let her take a paid vacation....and for the scrumptious prison cuisine.
Discalimer: The above is facetious. I am simply posting this because liberals keep forgetting one of their own is "behind enemy lines."
"because liberals keep forgetting one of their own is "behind enemy lines."
.
^ what ?
I think she's doing it because her son is dead.
Chief, let her know that the latest issue of Martha Stewart's Living has a great article with 12 fun and festive tips for complete jail cell makeover.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/keyargumentforglobalwarmingcriticsevaporates;_ylt=ApM_ks7O36esdvUmaa7flVhxieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NmhocGZ1BHNlYwMxNzAw
Jesus gas continues its march towards a less "questionable" existence.
Let us all enjoy our suntans.
@ Tally
Sorry bro - I was referring to the reporter chick still in the slammer for not revealing her source in the Plame case.
I think the chick you're referring to is the one that met with Bush last year. I am guessing that it's the same one that's in the tent in TX currently....maybe Bush only met one of her personalities...who knows.
She has my sympathy....as a mother whose son died in the service of his country....a son who re-upped after the Iraq War. At this point, and maybe it is just me, it appears as though he knew fully well what he was getting into when he re-enlisted. I am of the opinion that she is dishonoring her son's memory with her current actions....but then again, it is her son, her memory, and just my opinion.
@ 56
LOL - I'll be sure to pass that on to her...
@Tally: Re: Global warming. If we are to believe that there was once an ice age, wouldn't it suggest that global temperature change is in fact the norm for this planet? Why is it that we assume that temperature had stabilized but only due to the industrial age is it now moving again?
Not that I'm pro industrial pollution here, but global warming has always come across as a sky is falling scenario. Similar to ID, it seems like a distraction from more important things, like how you treat your neighbor...
^ what he said.
@ Flea
Sadly, she's on the record saying the exact opposite last year....quite profusely I might add.
I wish she'd make up her mind - is she "calmed" or is she "livid"?
Incidentally - ask JFK(erry) what opinion polls mean.
Why don't you guys call a spade a spade? She's a flip flopper and her son shot a 14-year old, unarmed Iraqi in the back.
Listen to the message. Stop attacking the messenger. You make me f'n sick.
Last edited: Friday, August 12, 2005 at 4:25:50 AM
From the DrudgeReport
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
AND...what's this?
Listen to the message. Stop attacking the messenger. You make me f'n sick.
OK, how many, MANY times have I and others posted in the forums and the response (in general) was to attack the source, website, or person cited while basically ignoring the information presented. "Oh, that data's unreliable since its posted on an Evangelical Christian website" and other such rubbish. I agree with your statement, listen to the message and stop attacking the messenger, but I expect that attitude to be applied to all.
Last edited: Friday, August 12, 2005 at 6:13:44 AM
Remember this...
Don't think like a donkey. Instead, try using the tactics of distraction and counter-attack — if you're being attacked and want to avoid discussing the merit of the charges....simply change the subject and attack.
It's THE M.O. Of this administration and current republican party leadership...and you guys have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.
What f'n difference does it make if she held a different opinion a year ago? What f'n difference does it make if every member of her family disagrees with her? What f'n difference does it make if her son knew what he was getting into when he enlisted?
Her grief isn't genuine? Her beliefs and opinion today are phony?
If you disagree with her message...fine. Disagree. If you think she shouldn't be given an audience with the President...fine. Disagree.
But stop attacking the messenger. Look at just this page of posts...chock full of attacks on Plame and Wilson and now this gal. Punk ass tactics, in my opinion.
Hey fellas - I have no issue at all with her grieving. I do, however, have an issue with ANYONE dishonoring what their deceased loved ones stood for...whether it be this or anything else.
That's my point. This lady has decided to further her personal views by hoisting her son's memory on this nation and pointing her finger at Bush. Her son wasn't drafted. He enlisted.....TWICE. This young man died in the service of his country, and the very least I can do is get pissed off when his mother whizzes on his grave (not literally of course).
She can shout all she wants to "it's about Casey"....that's a load of bullshit and the majority (ya know - the red and purple) see it. It's about her personal political views...that I am quite frankly convinced she had when she made her "Bush is my hero"-type statements a year ago.
That's my point and it's not political....other than the fact that some people will stoop to anything to throw a ripple against the tide.
A quote:
"It's easy to see why Cindy Sheehan, the 48-year-old mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has become the new face of the anti-war movement. But as sad as Ms. Sheehan's loss is - and we don't belittle it - she has put herself in league with some extreme groups and individuals."
- New York Sun editorial, 8/11/05
Last edited: Friday, August 12, 2005 at 9:00:30 AM
Her son shot a 14-year old, unarmed Iraqi in the back
I know you're being facetious here...or at least I think you are and am interpreting your statement this way...but this just reminds me of the kinds of statements that were made back in the '60's...kinda makes me wonder if that sentiment is coming back.
I'm struggling to stay calm here and understanding more and more why Stink went MIA...
Step back and look at the statements being made toward this woman:
She's just bitter over her son's death.
She already met with the president and complimented the way he treated her.
She's blaming the wrong people for her son's death.
She has multiple personalities.
Her son knew what he was getting into when he enlisted.
She's dishonoring her son's memory and pissing on his grave.
Her family disagrees with her.
She's using her son to further her political views.
She's disingenuous.
SHE BELIEVES HE WAS GIVEN FALSE JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING TO WAR. SHE BELIEVES SHE IS STILL BEING LIED TO. SHE BELIEVES SHE IS SERVING HIS MEMORY. SHE BELIEVES SHE'S DOING WHAT IS RIGHT.
Disagree with her on her points but, for Christ's sake, stop attacking her. It's a bullshit tactic meant to shift attention away from the legitimacy of her message. She lost her son...who the hell are we to question her integrity?
Last edited: Friday, August 12, 2005 at 10:10:32 AM
@ 44
I know how you feel.....sorry if I struck a nerve. I intended no ill will.
My only point was
I do, however, have an issue with ANYONE dishonoring what their deceased loved ones stood for
And I apologize that I let the nature of this thread seep into it.
@ Flea
Thanks for the point of view (seriously).
I guess this is the message from Meet with Cindy
Our mission is to persuade President Bush to meet with Cindy Sheehan and answer her questions about why the war that took her son's life was started and why it is being continued.
Like that's gonna happen! OK, sure, the President is subject to "The People", but I don't he's going to visit with her again . Perhaps I should go down to Crawford and demand an explanation as to why we're still in driving gas powered automoblies instead of Jetson cars. Then we wouldn't even have needed to go to Iraq for that blood for oil deal in the first place and Casey would still be here to look after his maw.
Hmmm, but let's look at the message.
Q) Why was the war started?
A) Ta git that raghead Saddum.
Q)Why is it being continued?
A) Ta git his raghead followers kilt.
Seems simple enough. Cindy can go home now. Our troops would go home tomorrow if the "insurgents" would quit killing their own police and security personnel and stop trying to derail the creation of a democratic Iraq (be that as it may). You'd think the "insurgents" would get that, lay low, let the Amerikans leave, then start a civil war and take things over, but I think they like killing as many Amerikans and other foreigners as possible (along with their own folks). That's cuz they're really TERRORISTS and they use TERROR to get what they want.
Jeez, with all the "we don't want a Christian nation driven by religious fanatics ruling Amerika" banter around here, you'd think folks would want to see a secular Iraq built and supported. Oh, yeah, right, we do...as long as it doesn't cost us anything.
Sure...and the cheese is free too.
^ PTT God
@ Flea
The blogs that I make reference to use links to published articles and news reports. You may notice the links in those blogs.
Let me give you an example: My quotes from the Senate Committee are from the.pdf file that you too can download and read.
Wilson was political theater. A pre-election bit of theatrics by the antis. A lot of smoke, a few facts....very little attention.
But Plame/Rove is political theater too. A few facts, some smoke, and an extreme amount of attention from the media. And still the Grand Jury is out and the complete facts are not.
Why the difference?
Political theater.
Just that.
Too bad. You can almost hear the backlash beginning to snap.
Last edited: Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 12:10:55 PM
P.S.
You were right, Chief. Rove was giving it to Cooper straight when he said don't go too far on Wilson.
Last edited: Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 12:16:59 PM
Cloud
I watch in amazement as the publicly "elected" figures continue getting embarrassed while their supporters, the increasingly deluded wingers on my right, think that every mistake, every failure, every miscalculation, and every illegal act is reason to celebrate in "You can't catch us, nanny nanny boo boo" fashion. Before calling the woman with the dead son a partisan hack, why not look around your house and tell us where your children are. At every step, the right refuses to address "the point," as the big picture, the strategy , receives its weekly reformulation. Before the next time you mock a woman who's son has died chasing the ghosts and ghouls that haunt Bush Junior, bite your tongue and send your kids instead. Don''t like her political cause? What the hell is yours.
Rabban, as usual, it's hard to tell when you're humouring us and when you're not. Maybe make a notation. JJ, your political theatre is in recess, which is not another way of saying that it's over.
Precious morsel:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_cafferty_bush_time_off_050812a.mov
Tally Ho will never accuse anyone of being a "forum god" if he or she must employ the term "raghead" to make a point.
From false premises comes great failure. I like how last week, when the news came out that we very much knew where Osama was but let him free to go chase saddam, none of us batted an eye. Chase your demons wherever you may make them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_popularity;_ylt=At2fQyJv.3sYwczcDBNSUxOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123813192137
Last edited: Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 8:12:32 PM
Respond to Howard Dean.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Face-the-Nation-Dean-President-needs-a-plan.mov
Howard Dean? Get real.
Just because the salesman works door to door doesn't mean you have to buy his rope.
*
I've enjoyed the two years of fruitless discussion in our little microcosm. I won't waste any more time here.
I suggest the rest of you do likewise so as not to trash minutes better spent reinforcing preconceived stupidities, stupidities you don't really even believe.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-Daily-Show-Sheehan.wmv
Leave no stone turned as you nobly carry on with this American white male's burden.
We all applaud your courage.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 1:18:26 AM
Oh, comment on Howard Dean...
"Sure you need a plan, but do you have a plan?" Bob S. Of CBS asks Dean after Dean avoids Bob's question about whether the Democrats have a plan.
The response is more blame game.
"You can't expect a particular senator or a particular congressman to have a plan..." says Dean.
Just why not I'd like to know?!! Dean gives a limp answer: Only the president can make a plan.
I don't think so.
Too many examples in history of alternate plans stealing the spotlight. A little fresh air of ideas might be nicer now than...
Broad sweeping statements of disapproval that don't get it.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 8:37:36 AM
1: "The president does not have an adequate plan."
2: (sticks tongue out and puts thumbs in ears) "Well you don't have a plan either...neener neener neener."
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Read on...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/
By Eric Alterman...
Yeah well, you know what’s coming next; tens of thousands dead; more than that wounded; hundreds of billions wasted; the hatred of the world; the creation of countless terrorists and torture victims, the destruction of a nation; and the dishonoring of the leadership of the United States of America. All in the service of something that “was never realistic,” an “unreality” that was sold to us by a dishonest, fanatical group of ideologues and their cheerleaders in the so-called liberal media.
What’s perhaps most galling about this is the fact that if you tried to warn your fellow citizens against just this likelihood three years ago when it was still preventable, you were part of some decadent, fifth-columnist coastal elite that hated America, while the chest beating patriots were the ones who drained this nation of its blood and treasure is the service of their own lethal combination of ignorance, arrogance, and ideological obsession. Onward Christian Soldiers.
Last edited: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 7:13:36 AM
Page : 1 . . . . . 11 : 12 : <13> : 14 : 15 . . . . . 23
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?